Jordan Peterson thread

[Trusty]

That’s a fair point.

My question would be, is/was CHAZ/CHOP representative of a BLM-led society or was it a bunch of chancers taking advantage of an unusual situation? Maybe it doesn’t matter if the end result is the same…

Not sure, like you say, but it probably doesn't matter..

Ah, now I see why it fizzled out.

To be honest, I gave up after 10 minutes when he said that in the 1950s, America had the highest living standards because the government kept out of the way back then.

Does the quality of the debate (from both sides) get any better?

Also, I’d just like to point out that I’m not a Marxist or a Socialist — you’d be forgiven for assuming that based on my posts in this thread.

Just as liberal democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others, I see capitalism as the worst economic model, apart from all the others. I don’t believe in a completely laissez-faire free market but I do advocate ‘capitalism with a conscience’.

Not really, its just general talk like in the first 10 mins.

I realise you're not a socialist/marxist, you just sympathise with some of the ideas because you want a more equitable world, i'm similar tbf.

'Capitalism with a conscience'...it kinda has it baked in though, if a company doesn't treat its workers well, the worker should move and work for a company that does treat people right. If a company sells goods which are of poor quality, people won't buy those goods and the company will make a loss, thus telling the company its not providing any real benefit to society. I realise that it doesn't always play out like that so i'm also in favour of a light touch when it comes to regulation.

 

[Trusty]

That's interesting, IIRC in 1950 the US top rate of tax was something like 90%, the government was offering free/very heavily subsidised education/training, healthcare and low interest loans to the servicemen who fought in WW2 (and their families), almost like the government actively helping a large part of the population improve themselves whilst taxing the rich properly worked and led to an increase in living standards pretty much across the board.
I'm sure that's not the point he's trying to make though.

No one paid 90% though, or anywhere close to that. Its a lie told by people who want to tax the rich more

 

[Raz]

No one paid 90% though, or anywhere close to that. Its a lie told by people who want to tax the rich more

Yup, but closest might have been 80% (may be wrong, skimmed the following article).

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/

 

[Irish_Tom]

That's interesting, IIRC in 1950 the US top rate of tax was something like 90%, the government was offering free/very heavily subsidised education/training, healthcare and low-interest loans to the servicemen who fought in WW2 (and their families), almost like the government actively helping a large part of the population improve themselves whilst taxing the rich properly worked and led to an increase in living standards pretty much across the board.

I'm sure that's not the point he's trying to make though.

Exactly. It also ignores the ~20 years beforehand, which saw FDR's New Deal and a World War, in which the US government played a huge part in providing jobs, training and infrastructure to improve the quality of life for Americans.

'Capitalism with a conscience'...it kinda has it baked in though, if a company doesn't treat its workers well, the worker should move and work for a company that does treat people right. If a company sells goods which are of poor quality, people won't buy those goods and the company will make a loss, thus telling the company it's not providing any real benefit to society. I realise that it doesn't always play out like that so I'm also in favour of a light touch when it comes to regulation.

Unfortunately, it’s never quite that simple. There are countless examples of people not behaving like the rational actors economists expect them to be. There are also countless examples of unscrupulous bosses exploiting their staff, their customers, the environment, and taxpayers or all of the above.

 

[Trusty]

Yup, but closest might have been 80% (may be wrong, skimmed the following article).

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-...e tax rate on,compared to 40.8 percent today.

This is probably a better article

 

[Trusty]

Unfortunately, it’s never quite that simple. There are countless examples of people not behaving like the rational actors economists expect them to be. There are also countless examples of unscrupulous bosses exploiting their staff, their customers, the environment, and taxpayers or all of the above.

Hence why i said "i realise it doesn't always play out like that"

 

[Irish_Tom]

Hence why i said "i realise it doesn't always play out like that"

 

[Raz]

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/#:~:text=The average tax rate on,compared to 40.8 percent today.

This is probably a better article

Indeed.

 

[Trusty]

One of the main talking points at Davos this year was ESG, that'll no doubt create an environment which will steer companies onto the correct path.

 

[RDM]

I read some opinion piece recently describing Jordan Peterson as ‘the dumb man’s smart person’....

Yeah, I like him.

(Additional context cut for humorous reasons!)

I like some of what he has to say, I am somewhat wary though by the almost cult like following he has. Some of his "followers" really do detract from his message.

 

[Nitefly]

(Additional context cut for humorous reasons!)

I like some of what he has to say, I am somewhat wary though by the almost cult like following he has. Some of his "followers" really do detract from his message.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m a complete boob

Everything seems to get hijacked by idiots. Every side of every argument these days.

I was actually a little annoyed recently when I was googling for Peterson vids and there was a video called something like “Jordan Peterson: white privilege doesn’t exist”, which made me raise my eyebrows slightly as that doesn’t seem like something he’d say. I watched and... lo and behold, he didn’t say that. What he did say is that there is white privilege but there are thousands of other privileges none of which are capable of eradicating the intrinsic nature of the individual (so you can only put limited weight on it) and, in a separate video, that you can’t use the concept to put blame on people that lack any real culpability, irrespective of their privilege.

So basically a YouTube user twisting the message with the video heading.

Then you have people saying “all white people should be ashamed of themselves” which is the other ridiculous side of the argument.

Why can’t people just be sensible.... argh!

 

[MikeTheNative]

He knows his audience and plays them well.

 

[Nitefly]

He knows his audience and plays them well.

In what sense? As in, he tells people what they want to hear? I suppose that’s true although it’s a bit circular and true of all audiences - you listen to what you agree with.

 

[RDM]

I’ll be the first to admit I’m a complete boob

Everything seems to get hijacked by idiots. Every side of every argument these days.

I was actually a little annoyed recently when I was googling for Peterson vids and there was a video called something like “Jordan Peterson: white privilege doesn’t exist”, which made me raise my eyebrows slightly as that doesn’t seem like something he’d say. I watched and... lo and behold, he didn’t say that. What he did say is that there is white privilege but there are thousands of other privileges none of which are capable of eradicating the intrinsic nature of the individual (so you can only put limited weight on it) and, in a separate video, that you can’t use the concept to put blame on people that lack any real culpability, irrespective of their privilege.

So basically a YouTube user twisting the message with the video heading.

Then you have people saying “all white people should be ashamed of themselves” which is the other ridiculous side of the argument.

Why can’t people just be sensible.... argh!

I have no idea, honestly I think the polarisation of views is one of the worst things to come out of social media.

Do I acknowledge that there is prejudice? Obviously, you would be silly not to. Is it the strongest impact on success or failure? Well academically, no, white working class boys are the ones that are failing most badly in the UK at least. So where is their privilege?

 

[Merlin5]

He's really grown on me. People often think he's angry but he's not really, he's just passionate about teaching and frustrated that young people aren't making the best of their lives. That universities aren't instilling the kind of positive thinking to students that he lives by.

This is one of the best JP videos I've seen. Such a great orator with incredible vocabulary. So much well worded advice and wisdom.

 

[Sankari]

People often think he's angry but he's not really

Of course he's not angry, he's successfully conned people into giving him millions of dollars. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[james.miller]

Of course he's not angry, he's successfully conned people into giving him millions of dollars. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

"Jordan Peterson is a gateway drug in to Christian Conservative ideas"

Oh **** off.

 

[Gray2233]

lol...

The Serfs, seriously?

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I’ll be the first to admit I’m a complete boob

Everything seems to get hijacked by idiots. Every side of every argument these days.

I was actually a little annoyed recently when I was googling for Peterson vids and there was a video called something like “Jordan Peterson: white privilege doesn’t exist”, which made me raise my eyebrows slightly as that doesn’t seem like something he’d say. I watched and... lo and behold, he didn’t say that. What he did say is that there is white privilege but there are thousands of other privileges none of which are capable of eradicating the intrinsic nature of the individual (so you can only put limited weight on it) and, in a separate video, that you can’t use the concept to put blame on people that lack any real culpability, irrespective of their privilege.

So basically a YouTube user twisting the message with the video heading.

Then you have people saying “all white people should be ashamed of themselves” which is the other ridiculous side of the argument.

Why can’t people just be sensible.... argh!

It's called Yellow Journalism and people do it every single day on these forums.

 

[Yadda]

Of course he's not angry, he's successfully conned people into giving him millions of dollars. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

I didn't expect such a religious slant from JP.

"Keep the sacred fire burning."
"Confront the eternal adversary."
"Build the crystal palace."
"Offer your sons up as a sacrifice to God."

Anyone know what religion that is?